Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of politicians opposing cults


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was delete.  Majorly   (hot!)  11:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

List of politicians opposing cults

 * – (View AfD) (View log)


 * Delete - rather indiscriminate list with rather vague inclusion criteria. Any politician who's "taken a prominent stance" against "cults" can be included. The definition of "cult" is problematic and plagued with POV issues. One man's "cult" is another man's "religion." The definition of "taking a prominent stance" is also subject to improper POV interpretation. Politicians take stands on any number of issues and generating lists based on each position seems completely unnecessary. Otto4711 01:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep -- List has been stable for a long time now. User:Jossi was the one who originally had proposed moving this information to its own article, DIFF.  The list currently is sourced with 10 citations.  If need be, the inclusion criteria for the article can be tightened.  Similar lists exists that are stable, with tight inclusion criteria, such as List of groups referred to as cults, which survived several AFDs.  Smee 02:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC).
 * What is the objective definition of "cult" for purposes of this list? What is the objective definition of a "prominent stance" for purposes of this list? That another list exists doesn't justify this one. Are there, by the way, any politicians who support cults? Otto4711 02:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * All very good questions, and I thank you for asking them. However, these would be better put on the talk page, where we could have a prolonged and healthy discussion about definition criteria and perhaps also tighter inclusionary criterion.  Smee 02:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC).
 * The answer to the questions are: there is no objective definition of "cult" and there is no objective definition of "prominent stance." Otto4711 03:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * And that is why each entry is backed up by multiple citations. Smee 03:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC).


 * troubled keep the list was moved from List of cult and new religious movement researchers, another page that will have problems of scope and documentation similar this one. in that list, and in this, all the entries are either links to WP articles with sources,or have sources listed. But in that list, the researchers can --at least in principle -- be people who researched and supported the cults, though I have not checked to see if any are. In the title of this one, the term "opponent" is used. I can see why a politician might object to being listed as one who supported cults, but I can also imagine people who have become involved in such questions and are not necessarily opponents. In other word, I think the title and inclusion is POV, but can't think what to do about it. DGG 05:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Er, if the title and inclusion criteria are impermissably POV, then delete. Otto4711 05:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No sir, if the content is not salvagable, then delete. Any editor has the ability to rename the article or redefine the inclusion criteria to be a better article; its a wiki world. John Vandenberg 06:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes sir, and the content is not salvageable, for the reasons laid out in the nomination. Otto4711 15:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Most of the people on this list have been very active in defining laws against cult-like groups, so I doubt they would take offence. The word "opposing" isnt ideal, but I think it is acceptable provided the list doesnt become filled with any politician that has noticed they are not on this list and shouts "down with cults" from the floor to rectify it. John Vandenberg 05:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak keep -- Otto4711 has pointed out the obvious weaknesses of anything to do with cults, but this is an encyclopaedia, so a broad definition is acceptable, and this list is just an extension of our coverage of that subject. A politicians "prominent stance" is more difficult to pin down as they often change, but so far Smee has done a reasonable job in isolation.  I personally dont see much value in this list as Cults and governments covers the same territory, but lists are useful for quick access and to assist in further developing a subject, so we should err on the side of keeping lists where good faith says the contributor is going to keep it under control. John Vandenberg 05:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * so far Smee has done a reasonable job in isolation -- Thank you! That is truly appreciated.  Smee 05:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC).
 * Possible keep? - I'm not too sure what to do with this one. It has sources on one hand, slight POV, NN & shortness in the other. May change my vote if other voters provide swaying arguments, but for now I'll assign myself to a keep.I agree with Otto though, the difinition of cult is problematic. The inclusion guidelines for this list need to be defined more, as any religion could be a cult (At the time of Nero, Christianity was considered a small cult, & look what that's become...) -- Spawn Man 05:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * A big cult? :-) John Vandenberg 06:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Ha ha ha ha... very funny... ;) Spawn Man 07:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. As the word "cult" has quite a negative connotations politicians won't hesitate to take an opportunity to oppose something like that. Yet another list of every politician is not needed here. (Germany and Scientology would make a really good battle zone here.) Pavel Vozenilek 10:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete the definition of cult is subjective, emotive and POV. I really don't see this an encyclopedic at all. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 12:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete: Are you kidding me? How about List of politicians who don't kill babies. Sheesh. IvoShandor 12:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Further comment: This sets an awfully bad precedent it would seem. There could theoretically be a list based upon every political stance ever taken by more than one politician. These are not defining characteristics of the lists members and if they are, it belongs in the article about the person not on a list. IvoShandor 12:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Partially agree with you: first of all this info must be found in persn's bio, for the high possibility of verification. But first, "defining characteristic" is a criterion for categories. Second, If it is in the bio, then no reason not to have a list. ""Opposing cults" is a notable stance, unlike logical fallacy of "killing babies". `'mikka 15:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Hee. ;). Seriously though, there isn't anything particularly notable about opposing cults, are their politicians who endorse cults, or support them? Try to make that list, that might be a bit more encyclopedic. IvoShandor 17:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Partly per Pavel.  This is a strange case.  I really don't think it's appropriate to have lists characterizing the stances of politicians one way or the other: for most political stances, it's very touchy (say, pro-tax or anti-tax, for instance) and it's the kind of thing politicians do in campaign ads, can be very POV.  In the articles on individual politicians, okay: we can assume the POV issues will be handled carefully there, but not on a list.  Here, it may not be so controversial but I see no compelling reason to have such a list.  On the other hand, an article about proposed anti-cult laws/legislative actions would have definite merit.  Mango juice talk 12:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. A "list of people (politicians) who support/oppose x" is generally a bad idea to begin with, and while some might actually have some value I fail to see how a list of politicians based on their stance on cults is of any encyclopedic value.  I certainly can't imagine any politician coming out as pro-cult so ... anyway.  WP:NOT, loosely related topics.  Ar ky an  &#149; (talk) 15:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * keep Verifiable. Cleanup. Only politiciad that persistently oppose cults, not just mumble something in a n interview, must be included. In particular, only those for which this fact is mentioned in the bio as a notable fact, for verifiability reasons. `'mikka 15:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete This is a rare case where inline citations do not really cause me to lend support. I don't see the encyclopedic value. WP:NOT. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 17:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete List cruft. What's next List of politicians who support apple pie? --Duke of Duchess Street 17:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Interpretation of political comments, definition of a cult, and changing political opinions are only some of the things that make this list original research. Listcruft, indeed.Ezratrumpet 01:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.